Renovictions
If a renovation legally requires a building permit, it is usually an indication that the tenant must vacate the premises until the work is completed.
Is it possible to evict a tenant for the purpose of carrying out renovations?
When a landlord is required to carry out repairs or renovations, such as after receiving a directive to comply with the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, Chapter 23, it may be challenging to undertake the work while the rental units are occupied.
In such instances, the landlord may prefer that the tenants vacate the premises; however, it is crucial to acknowledge that tenants generally possess the legal right to move back in once the renovation work is complete.
Moreover, unless authorized by the Landlord Tenant Board, the landlord is prohibited from raising the rent for returning tenants (although they may do so for new tenants).
To secure the right to reoccupy the rental unit after renovations are completed and tenants have moved out, written notice of intention to return must be provided. Additionally, tenants must provide written notice of a temporary address during the relocation period.
GET A FREE QUOTE
To what extent will the renovation be carried out?
The repair and renovation work must be substantial enough to warrant the displacement of tenants during the work. This was highlighted in the case of [Landlord] v. [Tenant], 2011 CanLII 101419 (ON LTB), where the renovation was deemed insignificant as it did not require a building permit.
The landlord had previously been ordered by a building inspector to make several changes to the rented property, including removing walls, kitchens, and laundry areas. Two of the three units were already vacant, and much of the repair work had been completed. However, the tenants of the third unit resisted leaving, and the issue was brought before the Landlord Tenant Board. The question to be determined was whether the landlord needed vacant possession to complete the work and whether the tenants were required to leave during the renovation work.
In the aforementioned case of [Landlord] v. [Tenant], both (a) and (b) were deemed irrelevant, with the focus solely on (c), which mandates that a building permit is required for the work and that the work is significant enough to require vacant possession. While it was established that repairs and renovations were needed, the question remained as to whether the tenants needed to be displaced in order to facilitate the work.
During the landlord’s testimony, concerns were raised about noise, dust, and safety hazards for the tenants. However, the landlord failed to convince the Landlord Tenant Board adjudicator that these concerns were significant, as the repairs were relatively minor in nature and no evidence was presented to support the viewpoint. Additionally, the landlord expressed a desire to increase the rent following the renovations, leading the adjudicator to remark that “This evidence does not establish that vacant possession is necessary for the renovations to be completed as much as it indicates that the Landlords have an ulterior motive for wanting the Tenants to leave.”
Ultimately, the adjudicator determined that vacant possession was not necessary as the required renovation work was minor and the tenants were willing to tolerate the anticipated disruptions.